Phil Rubinstein: This is Phil. We're up in Seattle, up by Puget Sound and the Pacific. And we have Monterrey and Wiesbaden. And I think what was suggested was, that we'll take two questions from Seattle, and then two from Monterrey, and one from Wiesbaden. And then we'll repeat that cycle. Monterrey, this is their first cadre school, and we want to give them plenty of opportunity; and of course, up here and in Wiesbaden, we've had a few of these. So, I think, if that's reasonable, we'll do two, two, and one, and we'll have people come up and ask the questions.

Question: Hi, Mr. LaRouche. What is your drug policy.

LaRouche: Well, I think people's minds ought to be free of the danger of drugs. People who are on drugs, in general--if you mean "recreational" drugs--they're in the process of threatening their minds.

I'll give you an example: Let's look at the President of the United States. This poor fellow, who came from an underprivileged family background, obviously, got himself on some bad habits as a young man. Maybe he didn't like the family he was born in, or whatever. But, he got into these habits. Now, if you look at him today, his mental processes are not very good, and he's the President of the United States, and we put him in there. I didn't have anything to do with putting him in there, but we, in the sense of the United States, put him in there. And here's a man who's a typical example of the danger to the nation, when somebody, who should have a mind, has destroyed that mind by the use of recreational drugs.

And, we have to recognize, also, how this came into being. This is not an accident. It was done deliberately. People think, "Well, it's fashionable. Drugs are fashionable. We have a right to drugs." They don't know how this came about: The introduction of drugs was a calculated measure, to make people stupid, so they could be more easily controlled, by being habituated to drug use, and then having--as in the case of our incumbent President, a person who shows signs of permanent brain damage, or neurological damage, as a result of, apparently, by the way he behaves--apparently because of his drug habits, of (shall we say?) "wasted youth."

So, our policy should be: Drugs today are a major threat to civilization, and they have to be recognized as such. It's not a matter of freedom of choice. There is no freedom of choice, if you're becoming part of a machine, where your weakness itself has become a danger to society, because your mind has been altered by these kind of recreational practices.

Question: Hello Lyn. This is Seattle, and I just read your "On the Subject of Metaphor" paper. And you talk a lot about, actually, Kepler's "Snowflake" paper. And you talk about the Golden Section, as being a reflection of actually, of negative curvature--or, actually of the process of development, and this is also reflected in negative curvature. You speak about one way of looking at things, as space being the close packing of spheres, with the envelope of all possible spaces being negative curvature. I was curious about that.

But, in relation to this, I was speaking to Leni, yesterday, and we were talking about the fact, that when people are developing, you have this negentropic growth; but, once you stop, you start to degenerate. You start to--like the snowflake begins to melt, because it has an entropic geometry. And I was thinking about this, in relationship to what we're speaking about now, with the nation. Because, I use this in the field a lot, what Benjamin Franklin said, "Now, you have a republic, if you can keep it." And I was thinking about this in relationship to this negative curvature, which I don't fully understand. So...

LaRouche: All right, fine [laughing]. Well, first of all, I haven't degenerated yet, and I don't plan to. As a matter of fact, I'm doing better than I ever did, before! So, we shouldn't assume that there's any automaticity in decadence and in systems. I do not expect I'll be biologically immortal--I'm not claiming that--but, I'm doing pretty well.

But, this goes to a very deep, underlying question, which I only touched upon in that piece on metaphor. But, let me just give it to you, because other people will probably have similar questions or the same question, and it's a very important one, today. Now, as I've emphasized many times, the human sense organs, the process of sense perception, as such, is a part of the biological organization internal to our bodies. Now, what you think you perceive, in sense perception, is not the world outside your skin, so to speak. What you're perceiving is the reaction of your sense organization to the impact of the world upon it, from outside your skin, so to speak.

So therefore, you do not know by sense perception, exactly what that world is. However, not being an animal, you have a mind, a human mind. And therefore, you're able to recognize that there're certain paradoxes, which are called "ontological paradoxes," which arise in the course of perception. And these paradoxes enable the mind to conjecture on what are called "hypotheses," as to what the mysterious, unseen principle is, out there, which is causing these paradoxes to appear within sense perception. If they're proven experimentally, that is, if man can not only hypothesize a principle, but show experimentally that it's valid, that you can control it, you can use it--then, you know it exists, and you're able to change the behavior of the sense perceptual world through the use of this principle. That's what we call "knowledge." And, that is the only form of knowledge.

Now, look at that from the standpoint of the ancient--say, the ancient Greeks: Thales and Pythagoras, who gave us the root of modern science, in their method of so-called "constructive geometry." The key thing, as was emphasized by the Pythagoreans, is a doctrine called "spherics." Now, spherics refers, essentially, to man's looking up at the nighttime sky--particularly the nighttime sky--and seeing a certain order in the nighttime sky. Now, this nighttime sky, then, typifies for man the envelope of sense perception, the universal envelope of sense perception. This sense perception envelope, at first, they assumed to be spherical, which is what they meant by the equation between spherics and astronomy in, say, the ancient Pythagoreans.

But, the point is, what kind of geometry do you have when you introduce the idea of principles, reality lying, so to speak, "outside" the sensorium, outside their spherical sensorium? Well, Gauss has an answer for that. And, the reason I've emphasized so strongly this Gauss 1799 paper, attacking Euler and Lagrange, in particular, is precisely because youth today need some standard of truth, in a time when mere opinion has been substituted for truth in human relations. So you need a yardstick, a standard of truth. What do you mean, by the word "truth"? Give me an example of what you mean by the word "truth"? And, this Gauss test does that for you.

So, anyway. Now, what does Gauss do? Gauss says, "Look at these points in the sky." And, the great example was Gauss's discovery of the nature of the Asteroid Belt; he discovered the Asteroid Belt. He didn't actually discover it, because Kepler had anticipated its necessary existence, a couple of hundred years earlier, with his description of this exploded missing planet, and had explained why it must have exploded, because of a discontinuity in that area. So, Gauss re-discovered and confirmed this.

Now, from that point on, and from his other work, there's a development in Gauss's work--from astronomy, especially; but also in geodesy, as well--in which, you say, "Well, what are you doing here?" And this became Gauss's conception of the general principles of curvature, a concept which became the basis for Riemannian physical geometry.

What you're seeing out there, this dot, this sensation, this object, on the sensorium, is actually--if it involves a principle, external to the so-called "Cartesian manifold," then it can be treated as a curvature, which is tangent to the sensory spherical universe of sense perception, at that point. So therefore, the comparison of the curvature of this motion, by observing several points, as Gauss did in discovering the orbit of Ceres: by comparing these several points, you could determine the curvature of something external to sense perception, which you know, by this kind of treatment of the subject of points within the areas there of sense perception.

This becomes, then, your sense of what is true. That there's a universe outside sense perception, which is the true universe, which you know by these experimental principles, and you know it in terms of the intersection, in terms of paradoxes between the points of observation of the sense perception. You look at this in one way, in astronomy; then the same thing is applied to things on the macro-physical scale of ordinary experience; and then, again to living processes, as distinct from non-living processes; and to domains such as microphysics. And that becomes the area of knowledge.

Now, there are several famous examples of this kind of process, in ancient Platonic knowledge. This includes the definition of: How do you define a line? As opposed to what's called a Euclidean definition, or Cartesian. How do you define a surface, with respect to a line, like doubling the square, for example? How do you define a solid, with respect to a surface: doubling the cube, for example? How do you explain the fact, that, from a spherical system, there are precisely five regular Platonic solids?

So, these indicate, as Kepler recognized this, later, in his work: That, from knowledge of principles, we can prove and develop the notion, of a real universe, which exists external to mere sense perception. We have access to that, because the powers of the human mind, which demonstrate themselves to be efficient, because we are able to increase our power in nature through these powers; that, through these powers, we're able to discover universal physical principles, and thus, gradually, to get an image of the real universe, outside the range of sense perception.

Now, the way this looks, then, from the standpoint of the geometer or mathematician, is that you have three kinds of curvature, that you're looking at, in terms of the sensorium, that is, the spherical sensorium. Two are external tangencies; a tangency which is a simple curvature, outside the curvature of the spheroid; secondly, a negative curvature, which is tangent to the sensorium. And internally, a positive curvature, which is tangent to the sensorium. And so forth and so on.

So therefore, you get a conception of different kinds of negative and positive curvature, which is what we get in, for example, the geometry of the Periodic Table of Mendeleyev, as Mendeleyev understood this; and as our dear friend, late departed friend Dr. Moon understood it.

So, we have these examples, and when we think about these in this geometric way, rather than a Cartesian, statistical way, then the universe becomes much more comprehensible to us. In particular, we're able to understand a point which was emphasized by Vernadsky, in his definition of the Noösphere: That we deal in physical chemistry, with three types of experimental evidence. In one case, the principles involved, that is, the curvature, the real physical curvature, corresponds to what we call an "abiotic," or non-living system. Then, we have--the same kind of experimental methods, show us that there exist, also, certain changes, which would not otherwise exist, which exist only in the efficient presence of living processes. This is the Pasteur-Curie line, for example. Then, thirdly, we recognize, that the ability of the human mind, to discover principles, and willfully apply them to the universe--rather than just watching the universe operate on them--willfully applying them to the universe, by our will, we change the universe. And therefore, man's relationship to the planet, for example, is such that man's power in the planet, and over the planet, has been increasing through man's existence. And thus, we have a third category of phenomena, where we see a universal principle of mind, of the human mind, of cognition, existing, in addition to living processes.

Therefore, you have these three types of systems: One, that we call the abiotic, because we define it that way experimentally. Second, living processes, which we define as distinct from the standpoint of experiment. And thirdly, by the great experiment of human progress, there is the third principle, the principle of cognition, which is sometimes called spiritual.

Rubinstein: I think we can take two questions from Monterrey.

Question: [translated] Good morning, Lyn. What is a fascist, and why do you call Hannah Arendt a fascist?

LaRouche: Well, just to take it backwards: Heidegger was a professed fascist. He was a member of the Nazi Party. He was essentially a Nazi in his philosophy, before he joined the Nazi Party, together with Carl Schmitt, the fellow who defined Nazi law. Hannah Arendt was his lover, his mistress, at one point. And she also shared his view. But, she was Jewish, and therefore could not qualify for Nazi Party membership, so she went to the United States, and practiced her fascism in the United States, rather than in Germany, particularly after Hitler's entry into power.

Now, the term "fascist" really means--remember the origin of the term "fascist": The term "fascist" was a term, which was developed by the Synarchists, and it was used, particularly in the Italian case, by pointing to the "fasces" which is the famous symbol of the Roman legions, marching; they would carry this fasces, like this bundle of sticks, wrapped around a pole, called a fasces. So, fascism essentially meant the Mussolini movement's adoption of the fasces as the symbol of what became known as the Fascist movement. However, the Fascist movement was actually a branch of the Synarchist movement, which was actually the philosophy of the Napoleonic dictatorship--both Napoleon I and his nephew Napoleon III.

So, fascism was originally a French concept, coming out of the French Revolution, out of Napoleon. It was continued in Europe, by certain wealthy financial groups. In the 1870s, it became formally a system.

This became also known as the basis for what became known as "existentialism." Now, what happened was, the example is, of course, this Alexandre Kojeve, of Russian origin, who was a key part of the fascist movement in France, before and during--and after--World War II. He had a lot of influence on the economic teaching in France, and, of course, was a partner of the fascists in the United States, today.

Now, this movement became known, in the late 19th Century, as, not only Synarchist, but it became known in the 1920s as "Synarchist/Nazi-Communist." It was so known in Mexico, as "Synarchism = Nazi-Communist." Throughout the Caribbean, you had a network of people, called Synarchists, typified by Soustelle, for example, of French origin, who did a lot of work in Mexico, and recruited fascists around him, in Mexico. You had another one, Soustelle's teacher, Paul Rivet, who did the same thing in Peru. You had, in Caracas, you had, from Houston, Texas, a person of Russian-French origin, de Menil, who spread there.

These three, for example, were all part of the British group, which the British stuck on the French intelligence service of de Gaulle. De Gaulle later had an investigation of them. The U.S. had a major investigation of these, during the war and after the war, of the Vichy circle. And so, we had this category from the 1920s--intelligence category--of "Synarchist/Nazi-Communist." And they were Communists as well as Nazis in in it; but they all had one thing in common: They had this Napoleonic concept; this interpretation of Hegel's version of history, of Napoleon as the Beast-Man, the Dionysius, who would be such a terrible person, that the world would submit to his will, and the world would never object again. And, history would stop. And the system that Napoleon would establish would last forever!

That was the idea.

And, that's what it amounts to. So, the term "fascism," as it's commonly used, is an ignorant use of the term "fascism." It is one term for a form of existentialism, which takes it's origin from the Hegelian interpretation and Nietzschean interpretation of Hegel, of Napoleon's dictatorship, at the beginning of the 19th Century.

Hannah Arendt's philosophy, her existentialist philosophy, is of that nature. For example, Hannah Arendt is well known, like Karl Jaspers, and others; and Walter Benjamin, and others--she's well known for the denial of the existence of truth. Now, this is a characteristic fascist belief. There is no truth; there is only opinion. You'll often find, in universities today, where fascists are operating, you will get this teaching: There is no truth, there is only opinion; and therefore, good and bad don't exist. "Good" is not offending the sensibilities of somebody else with a different opinion. And "bad" is offending somebody else's opinion.

So, that's what the issue is.

Question: Good day, Lyn. I'm studying music, and I'm about to finish my studies in music. I asked you before about paradoxes in music, and more or less, I tried to understand what you told me from what I know about harmony. I can say that, technically, the paradox is a drastic change in harmony--or my hypothesis was that. I wanted to follow a musical system, and then change it, and I wanted you to develop more about the paradox: How does it occur? And when does it occur in music? Or from the standpoint, that, if you are analyzing the play, or you are interpreting, and I want to compose something, how can I create, if I compose something, a paradox? Should I start by having a base of harmony, and how can I elaborate more on those paradoxes?

LaRouche: Well, the idea of using harmony, or a system of harmony, is a very tricky proposition [laughing]--because, yes, admittedly, what you perceive is a change in the harmonics. But, also you'll get that with Romanticism, as well as Classical composition. For example Liszt, for example, is a fairly clever fellow--not as clever as he thought he was, but was clever and he was quite physically capable, of course. But, he would make changes, which were called "passage work" changes--I'm sure you know what I mean by "passage work." Whereas, in a Classical composition, passage work never occurs, except when some poor fool, who doesn't understand Classical composition uses passage work, or interprets a composition, which is a Classical composition, from the standpoint of passage work. You get problems then.

But, in general, the change of harmony is not the principle. The way to get this--the only way I know that is reliable, is: You start with Bach. Because Bach was a great genius, who made the discoveries on which great modern music depends absolutely. And, everyone who's done, say, keyboard work, or anything else, has probably worked through a lot of the Bach two books of the Preludes and Fugues. Now, in there, as I often refer to the example of the C minor fugue from the first book of the Preludes and Fugues: There's a problem which is treated there, by Bach, which then you will find later, in a much amplified version, in his works, such as the Musical Offering, or also a reflection of the same thing in the Art of the Fugue.

Now, if you really work through Bach, and re-live what he does, and the point is to--. First of all, what did he do? How does he use inversion? One of the great problems people have, is that musical training, today, makes a distinction between instrumental and vocal performance, and vocal music. For example, I have never heard what I consider a satisfactory of the Missa Solemnis of Beethoven. And it's not the fault of Beethoven. The point is, that the modern musicians are trained, in such a way that a sort of routine distinction is made, between instrumental performance, and vocal performance. And the training in the bel canto method of singing has dropped off, to the degree, that people don't know what good vocal performance is.

For example--and this is where this comes from: Go back to Pythagoras, or the question of the monochord versus the voice; if the human voice is trained to sing naturally, that is, if the most efficient potential of the human singing voice is utilized, then you will find that the voices break down into several adult species, each with a very distinct set of register cross-over shifts, in the quality of the voice. If you takes these conceptions, and organize the octave in terms of the singing voice, you will find there are certain peculiarities in the octave. This determines what Bach defined as a well-tempered system.

So therefore, if you situate this concept, as Bach did, within a well-tempered system, then, by using simple inversions, you create paradoxes, which generate whole families of harmonic development. And the work of, for example, the work of Beethoven's quartets, which I've referred to, for this purpose, a number of times, this is a work of genius beyond belief. And, the process of continuous, successive development, which reaches a kind of point of perfection with Beethoven's late string quartets, is an example of what you should want to do. But, I think that the way one does it, is by getting inside and re-living the way Bach uses a germ idea, a germ paradox, and enfolds the entire composition to a succession of steps, which also involve derived germ paradoxes, and brings it to a conclusion, which has a sense of completion.

So, the trick is not how to innovate. The Romantics innovate. Others innovate. Some of the Modernists innovate. But that is not really doing anything. The trick is to be able to learn to do what Bach did; to learn what Mozart did, especially after 1782, when he went to study with the Sunday salon in Vienna, where he worked through a lot of Bach's work, as well as Handel and others. And then, some of the later work of Haydn, from the same period, because Haydn was going to this same salon. And, then Beethoven, who was part of the same procedure.

And then, take the development of Schubert, which is a very interesting study, all in itself, from Schubert's younger works, and then, you find it in his later works, as a revolutionary improvement. He was already a precocious genius, as a child; but in his later period, he developed for major compositions, a new dimension of his thinking.

The work of Schumann. Some of the work of Mendelssohn, Felix Mendelssohn. And, the work, of course, of Brahms, particularly his later work, as the great continuer of the study of his predecessors.

To me, the mastery, from the inside--the inside--from the standpoint of performance orientation, of how do you start a composition, in its performance; capture the attention of the audience, at the first note. At which point, the audience's mind goes into the domain of the imagination, not the domain of sense perception as such. And then, as you reach the conclusion, the audience wakes up, and finally finds it has come back, from the realm of the imagination, in which it was living.

So, I think there's no mechanical shortcut to this. There are principles involved. They're all, in an elementary way, they're all presented in the two sets of books of Preludes and Fugues of Bach. And, if one, for simplicity, to solve problems, I would suggest people go back to those exercises, by Bach, to refresh themselves and clarify their own thinking, about what they're going to do.

Rubinstein: Okay, now we should take one question from Wiesbaden. And, then we'll come back to Seattle.

Question: Hello, Lyn, you mentioned a good friend of ours just passed away some days ago, and you mentioned that it was really on few occasions, that we really get to know people. We know their faces, their opinions, their behaviors; but that we don't really get to know them. So, I was wondering--particularly, also, at some point, inside the youth movement in our relations among ourselves. How do we really get to know the other person?

LaRouche: That's why Classical studies are so important. Because, in Classical art, great drama, music, and so forth--especially, I think, the most universally accessible, is great art. Which is one of the reasons, of course, why Schiller is so important in Germany, hmm? Because here you have the highest degree of perfection, in composition of drama, which means precisely the requirements, which I just described to the fellow from Mexico, is that, art means, we go into the imagination, into that realm, which is not a realm of fantasy; it's a realm of actually knowing. When we concentrate on the subject matter, in a very concentrated way, and thus we have an insight into what's going on.

Now, that carries over, into relations with people. For example: Great actors--you can always tell, when a great actor is, with a drama that's done well  -- you've probably seen a lot of bad ones, too -- but, in a great actor's performance, if it's well-staged, and the audience is reasonable quiet and responsive, then, what will happen, at the beginning of a great drama, the mind of the audience, the individual member of the audience, will begin to be captured, by what's going on on stage, so that, suddenly, they're really seeing--they're seeing the stage, but they're not thinking about the stage: They're seeing, in their mind, the reality, which the stage, in a sense, merely symbolizes.

The same thing in music. In great musical performances: The mind of the audience is transported, from the sound as such, into a second set of sound--the sound of the imagination: the movement, the passion of ideas, through these kinds of experience, to one thing: They tend to get us to think about the minds of other people. As great drama, gives us an insight into the mind of the character, which the great dramatist, such as Schiller, is presenting. So, we come out of there seeing inside the mind of that character. And we use that training of our mind, in great poetry, in great drama, or great music, to be able to look into the minds of others.

Now, to look at somebody else's mind, there has to be something going on there. So, this is greatly helped by a Classical educational training. And the function of Classical education, is essentially, to bring out this insight, into what's going on in the mind of a human being. By "inside," I mean the same thing I dealt with on the question of curvature, and what's outside the skin: That the reality is not the Cartesian manifold of sense perception. Sense perception is merely a shadow of the reality outside our skins. So, the trick is to get outside our skins, mentally, and to find, by experimental methods, to find out what the principles are outside, that we can willfully control, which will change the world of sense perception around us.

When we exchange ideas of that type, when we communicate the discovery of a principle of that type, to other people, we are engaging their minds, directly. And we get to know them, because we're actually thinking about what is going on inside their mind, not what they're projecting, by speech and so forth, from outside. Not merely sense impressions.

And, that's what the trick is: In Classical education and exercise, in Classical education, and in a way typified by Plato's dialogues, used as a rehearsal exercise, gives us a sense of the difference between knowing what is inside a person as a human being, as opposed to an animal-like response for that person, which has no human quality to it.

And, that's what really is knowing a human being. That's why, I insist, in education, that education must be based on this, not on teaching people opinions. Not on teaching them procedures; not on teaching them how to solve a mathematical problem by calculation. But, rather, how to develop their powers of insight into the discovery, and proof of a universal physical principle. Once you have that in mind, once that's clear to you, it is easier for you, to look at the person you're talking to, and see what's going on behind what they're saying, rather than simply what they're saying. This is the principle of irony and metaphor, in all great poetry and drama--especially poetry. Metaphor and irony are essential. If there's no metaphor and irony, there's no poetry--I don't care how it's done. Because the idea always lies in the behind the mere sense impression; behind the mere words, their literal meaning, in the ironies; in the double-meanings, the nuances. And, that's the key.

Rubinstein: Okay, we're going to take two questions from Seattle....

Question: Hello, we're rapidly approaching a paradigm shift, in which the approach of the oligarchy will lose control, or the economy we will be saved, or they will remain in power, and take down society with them. You've shown us the way to prevent such a collapse of the United States economy, and it would certainly work, if implemented. However, an economic collapse remains a very possible future. In the battle we're currently fighting, if lost, the war must continue. So, in the work for the world's prosperity and freedom, the battle for the United States' leadership is the most crucial strategically, at this point. If the final stage of the collapse is reached, before we are able to take power of the leadership, do you think the magnitude of such a collapse would prevent the United States from making any further progress in this war?

LaRouche: Yeah, I think it could be a disaster. That's why we have to do what we have to do.

Look, the solutions are fairly -- to me -- obvious. I think they become more and more obvious to many of you, as you go through this. The question is, it's not the lack of communication of the solutions. It's the lack of getting inside people's skin. What you have is, people say, "We-e-ell, maybe you're right." "We-e-ell, I don't know. Maybe you're right." And they walk away from the subject at that point. "Maybe you're right." "Ahh, I dunno! I dunno if I wanna believe you or not." And walk on.

To what? To where do they walk?

So, the problem here, is getting through to people, in time, to induce them to save themselves. That's our problem. It's not an easy problem, really, as you may have discovered. It's not so simple! As some people might think it should be. But anyway, that's the problem.

So, the function of leadership in society is crucial. And the function of leadership in depth, is also crucial. You know, it's not by convincing people that a certain formula is right, or this will be the right solution. That doesn't work. This idea of democracy in that sense, is nonsense. People may get ideas, but you find they don't do anything about it! A fellow sees a guy lying on the street, knows he should help him, but doesn't do anything about it. It's not that he's ignorant of the fact that this guy needs help; he's just not doing anything about it. He has no impulse to do anything about it.

Often, in things, when people know they have a responsibility, they don't respond to that. Because they don't have the feeling. "I'm sorry. I just don't feel I can do that, now" huh? "I don't feel I can do that"; "I don't feel that I can do that." It's not the cognitive part. It's not the formal cognitive part, that's the problem: It's the passion--the lack of passion. And, the essence of leadership, involves, in part, the person who's leading, not only knowledge, but passion concerning the knowledge: the will to act, in accordance with truth. Which is why the principle of truth is so important to know.

The second thing is, to lead, you must evoke that passion, in other people! The passion for the truth--not passion for some crazy goal, but passion for the truth. This inner sense of motivation.

Now, what happens, for example--this happens in military training (I guess before Donald Duck Rumsfeld got in there, but...): You would turn people as troops, into an effective unit, by developing a certain emotional sense about their joint responsibility for what they were doing. And it's true of life in general. People adopt a passion toward that. It is a passion that keeps a family together; desire to keep it together; the willingness to do things, motivated by the child; motivated by the welfare of the neighbor. Passion.

So, the problem in the United States citizen today, is not that he's stupid. He does tend to be pretty stupid--he's badly educated, what do you expect? But, the problem is passion. What's happened is, they've been brainwashed into putting their passions into what they see on a television screen, and not to other things. They have no passion for truth. So therefore, they say, "Eh! I'm lounge lizard. I'm a couch potato. I'm watching television, don't bother me!" And, what they're doing is, they're taking a spectator view of reality, and hoping that nothing bad will happen to them, or nothing will force the couch potato to get off the couch. That's our problem.

So, the problem is leadership. The problem is leadership, in the sense, of know what has to be done, understanding it; having passion for the importance of doing it. Passion also, for getting other people, to recognize having the passion, as well as the knowledge to deal with the problem. That's the difference in society. Both of which have equal knowledge: One has the passion, to carry through on the ideas; and the other one doesn't.

If our citizens are not given the passion, in the United States, to do what they should do, this thing is going to Hell. That's why the fact of this youth deployment is so effective: Because what happens, in a youth deployment--in an effective one, and I'm sure you've seen that work--you evoke a certain kind of passion. It's not a guy, you're talking to on the street, talking about this, and he walks on: No. There's a certain amount of passion involved, a certain sense of conflict. The persons you're addressing are in conflict; you're putting them in conflict with themselves. But, it's by getting into conflict with themselves, that they are now forced to choose, among passions. And say, "You're right! I'm committed!" Huh? They don't say, "You're right," and walk on. Where are they walking to? We don't know. They say, "You're right! I'm committed! What do I do?" That's passion.

And, it's the ability to exert that kind of leadership, both as what I have to do, what we all have to do: That is going to make the difference, as to whether we can save this nation, or not.

Question: Hello Mr. LaRouche. I have a question on the fact that the survival of civilization has always depended on Renaissance thinkers, thinking outside sense perception and popular opinion. But, if you're going to be a Renaissance thinker, you have to be equipped with reason, and not be emotional. And so, what our parents bestowed upon us, is that it's okay to be emotional, it's okay to act on your emotions, and do whatever you feel like doing.

So, my question is, how do you use and develop your emotions as a useful instrument in this mission, since the world depends right now, on your organization, on our Youth Movement, and how to get this Youth Movement to not act on emotions, when small things come up, but to see ourselves as sovereign individuals and be of use to mankind.

LaRouche: Well, this power to deal with these kinds of problems, was addressed by Classical art. Now Classical art is not something that somebody invented. Classical art is actually a sort of secretion of the human being, a natural secretion.

Any paradox in life, whether the paradox of sense perception, where you find that, in some moment, things don't work the way you would have thought they would from habits. And you realize there's something out there, besides what your sense perceptions tell you. At that point, you suddenly have a sense of irony--about metaphor, of irony. Now this means that, the most important experiences in life, are of this type. Things that evoke a sense of irony and metaphor, that the world is not what habit instructs you to believe it was. That's the message you find important to communicate.

These things are called ideas--genuine ideas; artistic ideas. So man tries to develop ways of communicating things which obviously are important to society, and to the individual and to others. Out of this comes art. It comes in the form of Classical poetry, which is an evolution of a combination of the natural qualities of the human speaking-singing voice, which has natural peculiarities. Which are used, as a way of communicating, in composing poetry. This is true in music. It's true also in painting, great painting, great art.

Why would a Greek spend so much time discovering what was implicitly the catenary principle, in order to get out of tombstone carvings--as a kind of sculpture--into a kind of sculpture, which captures a moment, a frozen moment of actual motion, as the great Classical Greek sculpture does. Or, the great paintings, for example, of Leonardo da Vinci, where this principle is explicitly developed by him, as this new conception of perspective, in the later period of his work as an artist.

So, this irony, this need to communicate important ideas, as opposed to simple, animal-like experiences causes mankind to concentrate on this kind of question, and this kind of experience, which is important to governing civilization.

Now therefore, the person who is a slave or a serf, who is trained never to do anything different than he's been trained to do, he's not supposed to change. He's not supposed to change what he does. He's supposed to do it! Like any good animal, who gets into the stall in time, at night, and out in the field in the day, when ordered to do so. And, to the slaughterhouse, too, when desired. So, that kind of person will trod along through life, never changing, and walk all the way into the slaughterhouse, screaming at the end, but not knowing why they got there.

Whereas the person who's alert, who develops ideas from experience, from ironies, realizes that the process of behavior, of society must be constantly changing. There are discoveries constantly being made, which must be shared, by aid of Classical art. And that's it.

Now, what happens, when we come to great crises, like the one now, and people are finding out that, it's going deeper than might be apparent from the news reporting; they're finding out the system's coming apart and dying. Who believes that the market is going up? Who believes that? Maybe a few idiots, who are brainwashed into believing that they have overheard saying that. But everybody knows things are collapsing. Any ordinary person out there knows that.

So, now we're in a period of crisis. And, the apparent thing is: We can not continue to do what we have been doing. So, up to that point of perception of a crisis, many people, because they have not been well-developed, in Classical culture and so forth, science, have been content to go along and get by in life; especially as you get older, when you get into middle age, you say, "I don't want to change my habits. I don't want to change. Don't try to change me. I'm going to be like this always." And they go on, stumbling along, through life, with habits they've already acquired--and a few picked up, here and there, added. But no sense of change. Then, you get to a period of crisis, and the population is stimulated to realize, that nothing is working! And suddenly, they begin to look for ideas, which take them outside pre-established habits.

That's the way it works. That's where we are now. The problem is, in doing what we're doing, is that we ourselves have to supply the ideas, which these people need. And therefore, we have to have an impassioned concern, for trying to recognize what their problem is; what is the thing they don't understand? What is it that confuses them? What are they anxious about, in terms of ideas? Is there a solution? And trying to put them through the experience, of discovering for themselves, what the ideas are that are relevant, and what the solution might be.

That's our job. And, it really is the same thing, as great Classical art. And it's something we should have leaned, if we had been more generously exposed to a tradition of great Classical art, already.

Rubinstein: Okay, now two questions from Monterrey.

Question: [via translator] Good afternoon. I have a question for you, which is very pertinent, I think. How do you know if the imagination is founded on reason? How do we know when it is our imagination, can not limit us? [Trans: I kind of lost the question here.] How do you know how to make your imagination grow without degenerating, and how do you find that thin line between growth and degeneration?

LaRouche: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! [chuckling] You have the famous drawings, cartoons by Goya. One is particularly interesting; it's very famous, we've used it often. A fellow is falling asleep, and all kinds of monsters are flying against the background around him. And, Goya has a reference to that, about what comes in the night during sleep.

And, when imagination is merely sleep, as Goya warns us, we don't know what kind of monsters may suddenly attack our awareness.

But, the contrary is, the imagination, in the positive sense--hypothesizing--is based on experimental demonstration of the validity of a discovered idea. And, "experimental" means that, in some way, intervene into a world where the principles involved are not seen by our senses; but, by knowing that they exist, we are able to control the world of our senses, by operating according to the principles, the unseen principles, which we know only in the mind, and not in sense perception.

Therefore, the question of scientific validity, as experimental scientific validity of a discovered idea, is the basis for solving this problem of this crazy "night of dreams," as opposed to fantasy.

And now, this comes into art in the same way. The greatest Classical art, does the same thing. It is a special kind of experiment: But the experiment in this case, is social, rather than simply scientific. We don't usually think of science, as man's mind, looking at man's individual relationship to nature. We call that, generally, "physical science." But, when we apply the same method to social relations, and social processes, we don't think of it as physical science any more. We think of it as, how to communicate an idea to the other person's mind, which will cause that person to act in a certain way.

Now, actually, it's physical, because whether society fails or succeeds, depends upon the kinds of cooperation, which depend upon social principles. So therefore, it's also a physical principle, but it's relationship to the physical universe, as such, of the individual, is indirect, as opposed to being direct, in the case of the so-called "physical principle." But, the methods are the same. For example: What do we call this study of social processes, as to principle? Experimental study? We call it "history." The study of history; the history of music; the history of art, aspects of art; and history in the explicit sense: We study history of mankind, as a science.

And, we have a lot of history to go with. For example, in European civilization, we have two basic parameters we use. One--I'm talking about globally extended European civilization, not to exclude Mexico! But, we're all part of this civilization. We have have two things. We have a trace of history, which we know fairly well, in terms of principles from Solon of Athens and the poem he wrote to the Athenians, who were being bad boys, at the time that he was an older man. And, we have from Greek civilization onward. Then, we have the impact of Christianity, especially as reflected as the Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul, which shaped the way the Greek Platonic tradition came down into modern, globally extended European civilization. This is what Schiller recommended in his Jena lectures on history: Is to take European civilization, from Solon to the present, and look at it as a continuous process, and learn the lessons of the progress and retrogression of humanity's condition, from that point on.

So, it is a field experiment. You can find, also in the case of musical composition, or drama. What works in drama? What conforms to Classical principles? What works in music? What kind of performance works? These are all things that can be demonstrated, and ultimately are physical principles, even though their immediate expression is not what we think of as "getting our hands dirty" in the dirty of nature, hmm?

Question: LaRouche, in your last document, "Insanity As Geometry", you define irrationality as a set of false axioms replacing reality. Then, I was also recalling "Beyond Psychoanalysis," where you define psychosis and that the way to cure psychosis is, you introduce into the mind of the sick person, rebuild it using paradoxes. But, in a bad case like psychosis, where you have no way with proofs, evidence, to return that person to reality, we could find cases of psychosis, which are no longer curable, or geometries of a mind which can not be recovered. Can you talk also, about the difference between psychoanalysis of Freud and the Socratic dialogue?

LaRouche: Well, I believe in Socratic dialogue. There are, of course, extreme problem cases in psychosis, which many of us, and particularly me, don't know how to deal with. But, in dealing with the ordinary problems of mental life, two things are obvious--as in the case of the teacher, teaching a child, which is a good example of this: A good teacher, teaching of children, a good way to think about this. Because, what's the teacher do? First of all, teacher gets, in a sense, the trust in the children. They're happy. So, happiness in the relationship to the teacher. All right, so that builds a certain kind of confidence. Then, if the teacher's good, the teacher tries to introduce the child to something which is not just opinion and prejudice, but discovery, to expose the child to a discovery. And, to come in, with each lesson plan, to give the child experience of a succession of discoveries. Now, as the child develops that ability--or as the adult--then they begin to get more and more confidence in the method of discovery, as opposed to the method of simple past habits.

In the case of psychosis, or in the general case of psychosis--to define it apart from a medical/clinical kind of way, but in a more general way--the problem can be understood from the standpoint of a physical geometry. That is, you have so many assumptions of universal principle, and some of the assumptions will be true; some will not be true. Some will be not significant, whether true or false; and others will be very dangerously significant. So, therefore, when people form judgments, like theorems, as you get theorems in a geometry--say, a Euclidean geometry--the theorems that the mind forms, as long as they're thinking in terms of a Cartesian manifold, will always conform to the axiomatic assumptions of that geometry. If the geometry is wrong, that means that some of the axioms are wrong, or least some of the axioms are wrong. And therefore, in a sense, that geometry is insane, because it's systemically incapable of corresponding to reality.

The same thing is true in the assumptions of society. For example, someone comes along and says, "Free trade is necessary! Free trade is a proven principle." Well, free trade is not a proven principle. Therefore, a society that believes in free trade, is a society which is collectively insane! And it will not survive, if it continues to cling to this idea of free trade, indefinitely. And so forth and so on.

So, generally, what the problem is, we have to think like a good teacher in a school, with children: That there are certain assumptions, of an axiomatic import, which must be developed in the child's mind. If you're good, you're not going to give them arbitrary assumptions. You're going to prove everything you suggest they adopt as an assumption, axiomatically. You're going to have a certain relationship, a loving attitude toward the mind of that child, which encourages the child, to get over the difficulties of mastering that discovery.

The same thing is true of life in general. You have to have a loving attitude toward the people. You have to want to assist them in understanding things they need to know. You can be firm; you can not tolerate nonsense--say, "That's nonsense. I don't accept it." But: You have to be positive toward the person, in a sense of your desire to have them succeed in making the discovery, of a solution to the problem you're presenting to them.

That's, in all normal circumstances, what you do. I've had to do that, of course, in just management consulting practice and things like that. You have a client, or a client's employee, who is an extremely troubled person, and you try to motivate them. You don't motivate them by some fake incentive; you motivate them, by giving them a sense of the importance for them, of knowing themselves as a person who solved this kind of a problem, or who manages that kind of problem successfully. Or, getting them to accept the fact that they have certain difficulties. You know, people sometimes are crippled: A person may have a loss of sight; an impairment of hearing, or another sense problem. They may have a neurological problem. They have to accept the fact, they have that problem. And, they have to define their solution to their problems, by understanding and accepting that limitation, which they can't cure. And, your job in dealing with them, is to help them find that solution: What can they do, despite their problems, which enable them to realize the benefit of being a human being, an effective and important human being. And, that's sometimes the only way we can approach these things--generally.

In dealing with psychosis and so forth, formal psychosis, that is, of the geometry type, or other types. Admittedly, there are times when the mind is so far gone, that it seems to defy all knowledge, all art, all skill, to bring that person back to reality. That's admittedly the case. And maybe we'll make progress in that direction; but, right now, we have to admit, there are cases where we fail.

But, in general, we shouldn't fail, in the majority of cases. And, my view is, that you create a happy society, that even people that are severely emotionally impaired, may benefit from the sense that they're living in a happy society, and that, in itself, may encourage them to come back to reality.

Rubinstein: Now, we should take a question from Wiesbaden.

Question: Hi Lyn. I'm in Wiesbaden. Here in Europe, most of us, over the Easter break, went to see one of the Bach Passions, as you had recommended, either the St. John or St. Matthew. And, actually, some of us had the opportunity to see the St. John Passion with the Thomanerchor. So, my question is, I was actually wondering if you could comment on the role of Christ and the Passion of Christ in terms of human history?

LaRouche: Well, the key thing, in these Passions--obviously Bach had a very clear idea of these--and the trick, of course, in the optimal situation, as in the case, for example, of the St. Matthew Passion, as in the case of Leipzig, that you have an audience, which is part of performance of the Passion. You have the soloists, you have the boys [choir], and so forth; you have the other singers; you have the orchestra. So, all of these are playing a part.

Now, the trick is, by getting the audience fully involved in the Passion--also in part of the performance of the Passion--they're now reliving the events of the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ. Thus, they're there--in the mind, in the imagination--they are there. And, they come to know what that is.

The art of Bach, is, by using the method of counterpoint, the way he does it, to create the musical tension, which corresponds to the drama: It creates a stage of the mind, a stage in the imagination, is done by the music. But the personality of Christ is something, that the individual in the Passions--the Passions are intended to convey: That Christ is willingly sacrificing mortality, for the immortality of his mission. And, that's where the power lies. Because the average individual is frightened by mortality, by the sense of it. And very few have this sense, that we find, say with the Jeanne d'Arc case: the sense that life is a talent, of finite dimensions, which has an beginning and an end, and you can not control that indefinitely. Therefore, what's important in mortal life, is what it means. What it means for generations to come. And therefore, is your life being spent wisely? Is it being spent in a way which is meaningful? Is it spent in a way, that you're looking back upon your life, can say, "This was good. This was useful. This was a life, that was needed by mankind. It performed a function."

And, that's the sense, that the Passions--both of them--give. I mean, the various St. John Passions have that, and the St. Matthew Passion, of course, has it in a very special way.

Rubinstein: Okay, we now have two questions from Seattle.

Question: Hi Lyn. I have a question about the mathematics of Gauss. I've read a little bit of what you've written on him, as far as the teachings of Gauss and Riemann and Leibniz, contrasting those of Euler and Lagrange and Newton. I was wondering if you could contrast those for me, so that I can maybe understand why the one, Gauss' teachings are so much more important, than the others? And what so specifically had gone wrong with Newton, Euler, et al.

LaRouche: Well, first of all, the root of this thing, is empiricism. Empiricism was invented by Paolo Sarpi, the tyrant of Venice, from the latter part to the last two decades of the 16th Century and the first decades of the 17th Century. Paolo Sarpi, among others, had a great influence on, to some degree, France; but, especially on England, where his influence is most notorious, upon Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes.

Sarpi was most famous through a student of his, who was also a household lackey of his: Galileo Galilei, who was quite a faker in his own right. Who was the teacher of mathematics and so forth, to Thomas Hobbes.

Now, the purpose of this teaching, was that Paolo Sarpi explained it as being based on the doctrines of a fellow called William of Ockham. And so, it was the so-called Ockham's Razor, was stripping out from science and knowledge, all those things which pertained to principle. Eliminate all principles, and substitute, instead, a set of so-called "reductionist" axioms and postulates and definitions. And allow nothing.

All right, now the effect of this, was to reduce knowledge to a statistical interpretation of sense perception. Now, I had earlier, the second question that I received this morning, there, from Seattle, was on this question about curvature. Now, imagine that, here you have the spherical sensorium of the observation of the heavens, of the night sky. And, imagine that you can see nothing but those points, as such. You now run a statistical interpretation of those points, which you see displayed, as events, or singularities, on the sensorium of this oval, this sphere, in which you're contained. Then, you are in the realm of empiricism.

Whereas science is based on rejecting that. Remember, now, before all these crap artists came along, you had the case of Kepler, among others; you had Leonardo da Vinci, before Kepler; you had Nicholas of Cusa, before Leonardo; you had Brunelleschi in the same period as Cusa. So, science was already developed! You had the principle of least action, as discovered by Fermat, in his work. You had the work of Pascal.

Along, in the middle of this, comes Descartes, comes all these things--this Cartesian model, which was used by Newton. And, Newton was a plagiarist. Newton's work on astronomy was all fake. He plagiarized an English translation, essentially--an English publication, of Kepler's New Astronomy, with the assistance of some people who worked with him. And, then he faked the results. And that became known as the Newtonian system.

So, what the problem here is, that these guys were all involved in faking! What's the effect of the faking? If you have a society, in which some faking is not allowed, in which people are actually discovering universal principles, experimentally, proving them, then you have a society in which the individual member of society knows what it means to discover a principle, which lies outside naive sense impression; does not rely upon statistics, but relies upon the experimental ability to demonstrate the efficiency of the principle discovered. Then, you have a society, which is progressive.

Now, if you have a society, which is not so trained, then what do you have? You have a bunch of dumb sheep: who will do as they're told, follow orders, know nothing better, and just do it, like human cattle. The objective of this process, is to produce human cattle.

Now, in the case of Euler and Lagrange: Euler was not stupid, but he was a fanatic. Newton was probably not too intelligent, actually. He specialized in black magic. But, Euler was a very skilled, very intelligent mathematician, from a formal standpoint; from tricks with arithmetic--for example, his discovery for the mathematical model for the knights' moves in chess is famous. But, he was evil. It wasn't that he was stupid, he was evil. And he deliberately created a fakery on the question of the complex domain. Euler's student, his protégé, who succeeded, and then later went to become the protégé of Napoleon Bonparte, faked it also.

So, Gauss simply made a demonstration from the standpoint of simple proof, that this was fake--it's fake. And that's what Gauss proves; he proves that it's fake; that these guys are fakers. And, by doing so, demonstrates what I said in answer to the first question today, from Seattle: That we actually live, not in a sensorium, which is some kind of a big sphere--we're looking at the dots, the lights on the points of the sphere. But, rather, what we see of these events, as singularities, are actually tangential points, of intersection of a real process, with the imaginary process, which is the spherical system. And, by studying the curvature of patterns of certain events--Gauss used three, to demonstrate the orbit of Ceres--by taking a pattern of several of these events, and discovering the curvature, of the tangency, associated with the observation of those events, now discovers the real universe.

So, the complex domain, actually pertains to this concept of the universe of reality, which lies outside the simple sensorium. So therefore, you have what we call "the complex domain." And Gauss's essentially discovery was to prove, by these and related works, and by his work in astronomy, to prove the principle of the complex domain, on which all competent modern physical science is based. Anything contrary, is incompetent.

Question: Hi, you speak a lot about the difference between truth and opinion, and even say you've touched a lot on the progression of principles in human history. And, I wanted to ask you, when you are approaching studying history, and studying actually what happened, history is easily manipulated. And, I was wondering how do you approach that, or develop a method of truth for actually knowing what's going on in history, so that you can make a link between the Straussian roots of the chickenhawks, and things like that? I'm wondering how you approach it?

LaRouche: Once you accept the fact, that human knowledge is of this form of discovery of universal principles, for example, when I was walked into my first class in geometry in secondary school, I was against it, from the start. Because it was obvious to me, that from the first days in the class of that course, that it was based on a fraudulent assumption. It was based on the assumption, that you could have a scheme of geometry, which ignored physical reality. For example--well, I won't go into that; I've talked about that a number of time.

But anyway, so the point was, once you look at reality from the standpoint of the nature of man, as being unlike an animal, man's ability to discover principles, which we can prove are physically efficient, which exist outside the domain of sense perception, but by knowing these principles, we then control the way we act, in a way to change the world of sense perception. Now, that's reflected, of course, by man's ability to increase our potential population-density, from an ape-like level of several million individuals, to billions now.

So, history, therefore, is a determination of the progress of man, and man's ability to survive in the universe, and to discover what the physical actions are, and the kind of social relations, which were essential to that progress. That, to me, is history.

That, I think, was the actual ancient root of history, with what we know of Thales, and what we know of Pythagoras, and that school and so forth, which I think is made clear to us by Plato.

Most people who've studied history competently, work from a sense of Plato's dialogues--that is, in modern European civilization--and therefore, the concept of history comes to us largely from Classical Greece, as in Thucydides, for example; The Peloponnesian Wars, is an example of this. But, actually, then looked at, from the standpoint of modern scientific cultures, which give us the ability to compare man's physical mastery of the universe, with man's mastery of the challenge of the social processes, with which that occurs.

Rubinstein: Okay, we can now go to two questions in Monterrey.

Question: [via trans] Okay, Lyn, I would like to ask if you could explain a little bit more, how this great infrastructure project allows civilization to create new urban centers, so that we would not be piled up, as we have it now, in the Monterrey metropolitan area? And I would also like you to tell us, how we patriots can say that a sovereign nation is the best way of living, not with the same sort of ideas, that some people are trying to impose on us, such as Jorge Castaneda, that we must bend before other forces that are better than Mexico; and to say that Mexico can be just as great a nation as the United States, or any other nation in the world?

LaRouche: Actually, we have not yet really developed this science of infrastructure properly. We have a lot of people, who know a lot of things, and a lot of these things are very useful and very good. We don't use those things enough, on this question of urban development, and so forth.

But, we have to look at the universe, and the Earth in particular, from the standpoint of the eyes of someone like Vernadsky. We have to see the process in the large, and then find ourselves within that process. For example, let's take the case of Central Asia, which I've used so many times: You have a tremendous concentration of natural mineral resources, in Central and North Asia. But these are fairly thinly populated, rather dry areas, largely; or tundra areas, which are frozen a good deal of the time. So therefore, to get these raw materials, you have to develop the area. If you don't do that, you're not going to have enough of the raw materials needed, to develop China, India, and so forth, and so on.

So therefore, we have to do it.

So therefore, we have to think about re-forming the characteristics of the environment, in such a way as to be able to solve this particular problem. For example, we have to move a lot of the water, fresh water which is going into the Arctic Ocean, move it down toward Central Asia; as by the River Ob, divert some of that water down there; from Irkutsk, a similar kind of thing, in Siberia, is an example of that.

And we have similar problems in Mexico: We have a lot of water in the south. Some of it comes tumbling down, with great potential, which could be used for power, and we have to find the cleverest ways to move that water along, toward the north of Mexico--which is too dry--and with the least amount of pumping, relatively speaking, to get that water into the central area, the drier area, of which Monterrey, of course, abuts; and the adjoining state.

So, that has to be done.

Now, we need more cities. We need to develop the green more. We need to think about engineering new weather systems, by properly managing the way we plant things, the way we use water, to try to get micro-rain systems going within the area, which give an ability to very more easily utilized and recycle some of this water that we're bringing north--that sort of thing.

So, we have to think about how we build a city. We have an idiotic tendency, in the United States, since the end of the war, to go away from urbanization, toward sub-urbanization. This results in a tremendous waste of land--and neglect of cities. The cities are left to be looted by real estate speculators. The cost of a house in the city and everything goes up; the income of the city, per capita, declines; the maintenance of the infrastructure declines, and so forth and so on. There're diseases, and the city becomes a hell-hole for the people that live in it. These are the kinds of problems.

So we have to think, again--go to another level: Now, as Vernadsky reminds us: We have three aspects of this planet. First we have the core of the planet, which is presumably, largely, abiotic--or appears to be. Then, we have a top layer of the planet, which has been growing for many billions of years. And the top layer is the biotic layer. It's the area where life and the fossils' remains of life have taken over. For example, the oceans, the atmosphere, are fossils. The soils are fossils. Much of the mineral material, which we mine, are actually come in the form of fossils, where certain minerals are concentrated by the previous activity of living processes, and they become now the deposits we tap, in that sort of thing.

So, now we have to think about managing the planet; because we have to control the rate at which certain raw materials are being concentrated, from inside the planet, toward the area, which we mine, in the Biosphere. We have to think about managing the atmosphere, the water systems: to manage them, for man. We have to think of this planet as something we have to manage in many ways, and don't simply utilize available natural resources: We manage them. So, we provide enough for man.

We think of all these problems. And, this forces us to think about the planet in a new way--not simply in a good engineering way, the way many people do--hydraulic engineers and others, who have excellent ideas. We have to integrate this kind of knowledge into a comprehensive approach, as to how we develop the planet, for people, for future generations. And I think we can do brilliant jobs.

We also have to realize, that we have to have a much higher rate of capital investment; that we have to end this idea of privatization. Yes, we need the private entrepreneur; we need the private professional: Because we need the creative genius of the individual. And we want people who are good at this, who have shown their ability to use this innovative power, to generate enterprises, which are beneficial to society. We want that. But, in order to have them, we must give them an environment in which to work: That environment, is the basic economic infrastructure--transportation; power generation and distribution; water management on a large scale; forestation; and so forth and so on. These things we must provide.

So, we have to have an integrated approach, to physical economy. And, we must then, in turn, understand how to run a financial economy, in such a way that we manage it, so the financial economy does not run away, out of control of the object, which is its physical object: That is, our object in financial economy should be, that if there's an improvement in the finances, there should be an improvement in the physical condition of life, of the population, the society, and the future. Therefore, we should have regulation, of the way financial processes operate, the way tax systems operate, such that, the flow of money and the flow of income corresponds to the purpose for which we create money: which is to facilitate the processes of trade and investment, in such a way as to produce these desired physical effects, hmm?

And, we don't have such a science. I think, in terms of any university setting, that this should be one of the major topics of discussion among the faculty and students, as to how the knowledge which we have, should be applied to clarifying our thinking about these kinds of longer-term objectives.

In the meantime, universities should be a hot-bed, of discussion and training for the kind of task, which for example, in Mexico, we were discussing recently--again--the kind of tasks to rebuild Mexico, in order to solve the problem of the Mexican population. Because the country has to be rebuilt, in such a way, that the population of Mexico--which is growing, and should grow--will have the means to exist, within its borders, and not simply have to export its people, to find a living for them.

Question: [transl] Hello Mr. LaRouche, my question is, regarding Jacobinism in Latin America. Here in Mexico, we have it very strongly, among several labor unions, in the PRD party, in the Zapatista movement. I would like you to explain to us, your definition of Jacobinism.

LaRouche: Well, Jacobinism is essentially a disease, which was invented, and developed, in France, in order to prevent France from making the kind of reform which had happened in the United States.

The way to look at it, is to look at from the standpoint of [Jean Sylvain] Bailly, who is, probably in a sense, more able at this than Lafayette. Lafayette was a good-hearted person. But Lafayette was very close, in a sense emotionally, to the King, King Louis XVI; and was actually part of that caste, even though he was a very good representative of it. And, also remember, Lafayette was part of the youth movement--not to be forgotten.

But, anyway, Bailly had a much better conception of this. But, the two of them--Bailly and Lafayette--proposed a constitution for the monarchy, which would have saved the monarchy, and made the kind of reform, using the monarchy as an institution, which would have done in France, what had happened, in the reform--in the same year--in the United States, with the Constitutional republic.

So, that was the Jacobin movement's function, which was run, from Britain, by the British Foreign Office, through people like Jeremy Bentham, working for Lord Shelburne: They ran the operation. For example, the Bastille operation. The seizure of the Bastille was organized by two creatures, in the context of foreign armies occupying France. And the foreign armies were there, occupying the area around Paris, to try to suppress the republican Constitution, which had been voted up, but not adopted, by the King--voted up by the initiative of Bailly and Lafayette.

So, these Jacobins were, actually, British-directed operatives. It started with Louis-Philippe and Jacques Necker. Louis-Philippe was a British agent; Jacques Necker had been an agent of Lord Shelburne from his youth, from a youthful period. He was very close to Shelburne, through people like Gibbon and so forth, who were part of that Swiss environment, at that time, which was owned by Shelburne. So, the head of the British East India Company, Shelburne, essentially, had owned Necker, made his career; Necker had helped to bankrupt France by his service there.

And the whole thing was run as a stunt, where the [Bastille] guards were instructed to shoot--there were no prisoners of any importance; there were a few insane people, who were being transferred to a mental institution; hadn't been done yet. But, there were guards, these few insane people, and nothing else there. The guards were instructed to shoot. Louis-Philippe, and so forth, raised the money; armed the mob; besieged the thing; the guard surrendered, and then the mobs chopped their heads off, stuck 'em on pikes, took the gibbering idiots who were taken out [of the prison], put on the shoulders of the crowd. The crowd marched off, with the heads of the guards on pikes, off to the next event--and this was an election campaign to elect Necker the Prime Minister of France.

And, from that point on, it went down and down. Danton and Marat were both British trained agents, of the British Foreign Office. That's the character of Jacobinism.

Now, then you had this thing went through a phase--it went through the Barras phase, who became the successor of the Jacobins. And, then you had the Napoleonic phase. And Napoleon was the first modern fascist.

So, all the way through, this theory has been, of the idea that Jacobinism was the "left" wing, and the "right" wing was the right-wing side of Napoleon: Both were controlled by bankers. Not necessarily bankers, in the sense of bank owners, as such, but in the sense of financiers, who owned banks. So, these financier groups, using both a combination of both right-wing, like Barras, and left-wing, like the British agents who were the left of the operation, played one against the other, in order to destroy France.

That's what Jacobinism is.

Now, what's happened is this. Let's take the case of the German SPD, and some other labor parties around the world: The problem of the international labor movement--and this, of course, in the influence of the Spanish Civil War in Mexico, its spillover there. Franco was a fascist, of course. But then, you have this other syndrome, hmm? Here's a fascist--Maximilian was a fascist, hmm? So, you have the right-wing fascists, and you have the left-wing phenomenon. The distinction is this: In the labor movement, the focus on an anarcho-sindicalist approach to the interest of the laboring man, became a substitute for a Classical education. So, that the labor movements were very poorly developed as state movements. Now, in the case of Mexico, of course, in the PRI--people I've known in the PRI, represented a patriotic tradition, coming out of very peculiar circumstances, kind of a Treaty of Westphalia peace among forces, which ended this great period of civil war in Mexico. But, there were great statesmen who came into the picture. But also, in the labor movement, in the United States, in Europe, in South and Central American, there's also a Jacobinism tendency, which has been deliberately fostered, by an anarcho-sindicalist operation, which is the left side of fascism.

That's why, in the case of Mexico, for example, during the 1920s and 1930s, the classification of this problem in Mexico, by the U.S. military intelligence services--as in France--was "Synarchist/Nazi-Communist": Meaning that the people in the operation, the Synarchist operation--like Jacques Soustelle. Remember, when Jacques Soustelle's result: Jacques Soustelle was this so-called "leftist," of a certain type, who operated in Mexico, based on this cultural nonsense. He was appointed by British intelligence, to serve on the French intelligence staff of de Gaulle, during the war. He later turned up, as the man who was organizing, with Spain--with the Phalangist types, from Spain--was organizing the attempted assassination of de Gaulle; such that a friend of mine, who was General Revault d'Allonnes, who was the chief general for de Gaulle at that time, was out to kill him.

So, Soustelle, who is a subordinate level, a secondary level--not as significant as Alexandre Kojeve--was a typical fascist! And the typical fascist has a left side, and a right side, just as Mussolini did. Mussolini was a product of this--same thing: left side/right side. And, that is a problem

The way we have to combat that, in my view, is what I do: Combat this by presenting the question of man! Man, man, man! Man as what he is, not an animal! Not an animal with physical needs, but man as a human being, with a need for a sense of immortality as a human being!

And, the labor movement's interest should be in the general welfare, not in these little, petty Jacobin-type of incidents; not in, what we call in German "Schadenfroh" [ph]. Not in pleasure, in bringing a tyrant, although a tyrant should come down. But, we shouldn't take sordid, sadistic pleasure in that. Our job is to defend ourselves, and defend the coming generations, defend the nation, and to be nation-builders. And to be respected, and have a dignified life as nation-builders. And, unfortunately, the labor movement has not, generally, developed in that direction, sufficiently. I think, in my relationship to the labor movement has always been that point: Is that, you must get out of this nitty-gritty, nuts-and-bolts kind of (as we say, in the U.S.) operation; you must go back to the idea of the dignity of the individual. The dignity of the family; the dignity of the person who works and produces; the dignity of the farmer. And the basic thing, is to fight for their dignity, and look at their material conditions of life, as material conditions required for their dignity, and for the dignity and success of their coming generations. They should be nation-builders, in spirit, not look at themselves as an underclass, in revolt against an oppressor, but look at themselves as part of the ruling class: the ruling class of citizens, of a society.

Rubinstein: Okay, Lyn, we're running up against a time constraint. But, we'll take a question from Wiesbaden, and then, if you want to do that, maybe one from Seattle, and one from Monterrey. And, that'll wrap it up.

Question: Hello, Lyn. I come from Croatia. I would like to ask, how is it possible for a poor country like Croatia or Bosnia, to create credit for such a big infrastructure project?

LaRouche: Do it as a European project. What we need to do, is, essentially, create a new monetary system. The function of the new monetary system is to have a regulated, fixed-exchange rate system. That's what the first requirement is. Now, we could have an approximation of that in Europe. If things had gone better in Western Europe, with the Balkan situation, we could have probably had something like that, as a European venture. Unfortunately, the Maastricht agreement, the present European Union don't allow this to be done, as long as they continue in power.

But, what we should have, now, given the destruction which had occurred in the so-called "Balkan Wars," which started right after the United States pulled out of the Desert Storm war, is, large-scale reconstruction is required--as in Croatia, for example. Now, the first requirement, of course, is large-scale infrastructure: transportation, power generation and distribution, water management, education, health care; that sort of thing. So therefore, there should be long-term credit, at interest rates, borrowing costs, not in excess of 1-2% per year, for these projects.

The projects, of course, should employ to the largest degree, local labor. This should be a stimulant to the local business economy, and to the general income of the area. And, will give them--say Croatia, in particular--give them the ability to raise the level of income, productivity, and so forth to a level, that all these debts will be easily rolled over, in time, and paid ultimately. So, we're talking about 25- to 50-year loans, for long-term credit, for high-priority, major infrastructure projects. For example: The whole area, from the Danube south, toward the Black Sea, toward the Aegean and so forth, and toward the Adriatic, is one area, which has an integrated characteristic. It looks like a lot of mountains and a lot of other things, but it actually has certain economic characteristics, when you combine the idea of transportation, production, agriculture, industry together.

And therefore, if it's approached as an integrated area of cooperating nations, this should be a very sound project, very sound investment for the long term. The way we do this, as part of what we had originally in the European Triangle/Eurasian Land-Bridge programs which we had can be done. And they need to be done!

For example: France, Germany, Italy, and so forth, need markets. They need to expand. Therefore, whatever they give, in terms of long-term credit, to the Balkan countries, helps these countries in the northern part of Europe, to get out of their mess! Therefore, the projects are beneficial--immediately--to both parties: those who are lending, and those who are borrowing.

And that's what a good system should be. There's no reason we can't have such a system; that is, there's no objective reason. We have to get the will to do it. We have to make people conscious of the possibility of doing it. And, if they're conscious enough of the possibility of doing it, they'll insist upon it. And then, maybe, we'll be able to get it done.

But, the basic thing, is to fight for the system we need, the international system we need. At the same time, develop the consciousness of the people in each part of the world, of their role and their participation, in the kind of system we want to have built.

Question: Hello Lyn. I've heard recently that Nicholas of Cusa described God as the ability to reflect on one's own mind. And, I've noticed recently, that when I'm doing this in any given circumstance, that I actually--the room seems to get brighter, and I feel like taller, and I feel more happy to be alive. So, I was wondering what you think about this.

LaRouche: Actually, my view, is to concentrate on this idea of immortality. I've used the Jeanne d'Arc case, as an example, because it should be easily accessible and we've done enough research on it, so that we know that how we compare Schiller's Maid of Orleans Johanna, with the actual historical Jeanne, we know our ground; we know what we're doing. So, it's an example.

Of course, this relates to the question of Christ. It also, on that basis, in this idea of immortality, and how the ideas of scientific discovery, how the Gaussian-Riemann conception of the universe all fits in this--these kinds of things all fit together.

My view is, that, you get in churches, where they have a kind of proprietary theology, and so forth, taught, that that is not our business. Let those who want to do that, do it. But, our concern, and our political concern, and moral concern, should be to get across this sense of immortality, what we mean by it, in order to give people a sense of their own identity as human beings. Most people don't know, and could not answer, cogently, the question: What is the difference between a human being and an animal? And, that's our basic problem. The ideas of God and so forth, all come into that. But if you can't get to that difference, between man and the animal--if you can't make that clear; if you don't know that, then you have--ask somebody the question: "What's the difference between man and the animal? Give me a scientific definition?" You get nonsense. Then, the person will look at you, shame-faced, and realize that they're saying nonsense. And, they perhaps will just stop talking, or just walk away.

So, that's the problem. That's what I think the answer is.

Question: [trans] Good afternoon, Lyn. I am a candidate for federal deputy with the same campaign as Benjamin Castro, and I'm also a member of the Youth Movement. We are proposing to the people, great infrastructure projects. For example, we are talking about the maglev train from Mexico City to San Antonio, as you are proposing. My question is, we, as a state inside the Mexican Republic--how can we do that? How can we not as a country, but we as a state?

LaRouche: Well, there are certain limitations to what you can do as a state. That's the danger of parochialism. You can not--national projects can not be done as state projects. You have to have a national policy, within which, states, as states, can do things. But, the question of national credit and so forth, these things have to be, essentially--there has to be a national policy basis for it.

So, the thing is, to say--. For example, Monterrey has certain qualities. Monterrey has, and which is the dominant feature--used to be, some years ago, '82, in that period--used to have a lot of industry, which had developed on the basis of an indigenous development around agriculture and beer production, and so forth. That was, to a large degree destroyed. So therefore, in Monterrey, my first impulse, would be to say, "How do we restore this?" You can not reverse history, entirely, but how do we restore this kind of conception. And, to look at that, as a concept, and then fit in, "Now, what must we get the national government of Mexico to see, as the overall umbrella approach to financing of projects, and to coordination of projects among states, which will enable us to do what we should do here?" And, I think it can be done.

I think, at this point in Mexico, I think the crisis that's hit Mexico, and the fact that the United States is collapsing, which is a disaster for the whole dependency on the United States of Mexico, particularly in the northern part, has created a situation, in which the movement in the states, in the political parties, is going to undergo a change, as was reflected in President Fox's shift away from supporting the United States on the question of Iraq. This reflects a mood, throughout the Americas, especially South and Central America--the "surviving states" shall we say, in South American and Central America--a mood, that there has to be a change, there has to be a new approach. I think there are a number of states, which tend to be associated with PRI states--I think this is significant, but I think you're going to find, there's in Mexico, a growing sense, that there has to be a national objective. I think the most effective politician, in a state, is one who can project, in that state, a national and international orientation--especially a national orientation.

And therefore, I think, to say, "We need these projects for here, and for other states." You have adjoining states, which have similar problems. So therefore, the idea that, as a state, that you should only emphasize state projects--no. You should have state policies, on "we must have this"; or "we must do this." Yes, fine. But, on major projects, at the same time, you have to have a vision of a national policy, and the function of a state within a national policy.

Because a nation is not the sum of the component states. The states, rather, are subsidiaries of a nation. And that's the way you have to think about it. So therefore, yes, fine. You need local projects, which are local projects--the obvious ones. But the really decisive things, that are going to determine the future of society, are going to be those undertakings, which require a national will, about the nature of where Mexico is going, and then let each state, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, fit itself in, into that national picture. Because, then, the reciprocal relationship between the national government and the state governments can then come into play, in an effective way.

Rubinstein: Okay, Lyn, I think from Wiesbaden, to Monterrey, to the Northwest of the United States: We thank you for being with us. [applause across two continents]

LaRouche: Thank you.

- 30 -